My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/29/1992
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1992
>
6/29/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:32 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 11:02:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/29/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
JUN 2 91992 BOOK [r I i(b <br />but didn't know if she would make as big a deal out of the time <br />because she understood that Prince could get there in a fairly <br />decent time. It was just that Guettler was on time, and it was <br />felt they had more of a particular kind of experience, and were <br />award-winning, if you will. <br />Attorney Reynolds didn't know that it is necessary to find in <br />this case for the purpose of signing the statement. <br />Attorney Reynolds advised that in Court we will be put to the <br />standard of what was in the best interest of the County, with the <br />lowest, most qualified bidder. Again, that does not mean that <br />Prince was not qualified. The Commission will recall that when the <br />questions about the bid and the vote all came up originally, <br />Prince had been involved in some other litigation with some other <br />governmental entities and they produced a similar type of letter or <br />document. That is not an unusual request at all, and Chairman <br />Eggert has stated she doesn't have a problem with the letter or <br />statement. <br />Commissioner Wheeler understood that our specific reason for <br />holding this special call meeting is to either approve or not to <br />approve the statement that was faxed to you. Attorney Reynolds <br />responded that is correct. <br />Commissioner Wheeler still had some questions, and Attorney <br />Reynolds explained that the Commission, Prince, Scurlock and <br />Guettler are working out their settlement, and that the only <br />contribution that is requested of Indian River County is this <br />letter. No money. We did file an answer on behalf of Indian River <br />County in this particular case which includes claims for <br />indemnification and attorney's fees against Mr. Scurlock, <br />individually, and Guettler & Sons. Specifically, as it relates to <br />Guettler, the payment by Guettler in this case of any consideration <br />- whatever that consideration may be - he has worked out by way of <br />settlement with Prince. It was Attorney Reynold's opinion that <br />would constitute what this Commission is looking for by way of <br />6 <br />M <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.